Speculations

Many writers have attempted to guess about the possible existence of intelligent species. If there are such creatures, some of them may have achieved the building of an advanced technological civilization. Over the past billion years (that is some thousand of million years) some of these civilizations may even have succeeded in developing space flight. Here I will refer to civilizations capable of reaching their nearest neighboring solar system as SFC's (Space Faring Civilizations). Clearly under physical constrains based on our (limited) knowledge, expeditions to such far away places would take a lot of time. Humans have shown willingness to take long duration voyages in the past. Consider for example the expedition of Magellan that left Spain shortly after March 1519 with 5 ships and a crew of 251, and returned September 1522 with only one ship and 18 survivors.Some of the numerous writers that wrote their ideas about possible alien life include Arlan Andrews Sr., Edward M Lerner, Richard A Lovett, Karl Schroeder, Mark H Shellans and others. I am intrigued by suggestions (see e.g. Schroeder) that there may already exist a galactic network of communications. If we assume that as early as one billion years ago there has been an SFC in our galaxy, there may indeed be such a network (and if not, there may be one 1 billion years from now). Such a net would consist of active nodes, namely the home planets (moons) of SFC's,inactive nodes (bodies with evolving life forms, bodies where SFC's became extinct and airless bodies containing evidence of past or present civilization). These nodes would be connected by links to SFC's. Clearly the odds that two SFC's communicate with each other are almost zero. Communication would be by means of messages sent from the past into the distant million years future. There would be be messages locating inactive nodes (such as the existence of manufactured objects surviving millions of years on small airless rocky bodies) and occasional messages like the one we sent on our Voyager 1 probe. With time (hundred of million years) any small network may grow in size and grow in the amount of information. Gradually some SFC'c may start compiling the intra-galactic information and send it through the network. In conclusion, I believe that one of the highest priorities in exploring Mars, moons and asteroids is for us to look for any advanced objects that may tell us about life in our galaxy.

We already know of several SFCs, none friendly, as they have bases here on Earth and elsewhere in the solar system. Also, travel between solar systems would be relatively fast using antigravity, which could attain speeds of 3000 that of light. The chance of an SFC meeting another is fairly high. A galactic network of communications has been postulated by Paul Laviolette (Talk of the Galaxy).

_________________The light of reason cannot penetrate the darkness of dogmatic skepticism (paraphrase of John 1:5).

I have been aware of the effect of antigravity for several years. Basically the procedure is to create a virtual heavy mass in frontof the spaceship. This causes the spaceship to move towardsthe virtual mass at ever increasing velocity which has no limit andis not related to any limitation due to the speed of light.

Although this is obvious, it may be worth mentioning it. When I described a faster than light method of travelling through space,I omitted mentioning the effect on the astronaut. Since the spacecraft motion is towards a severely distorted spacetime volume ahead of the craft simulating a black hole, the motion is that of free fall, so that theastronaut does not feel any gravitational pull. As velocity in space increases without limit, the passengers are not aware at all of the"acceleration".

Although this is obvious, it may be worth mentioning it. When I described a faster than light method of travelling through space,I omitted mentioning the effect on the astronaut. Since the spacecraft motion is towards a severely distorted spacetime volume ahead of the craft simulating a black hole, the motion is that of free fall, so that theastronaut does not feel any gravitational pull. As velocity in space increases without limit, the passengers are not aware at all of the"acceleration".

It's antigravity propulsion so there is free fall so they don't feel the acceleration, but it doesn't simulate a black hole because they can't exist, and there's no space-time volume, only material volume.

George Gamow, one of the founding fathers of quantum physics, states in his watershed book Thirty Years That Shook Physics: the Story of Quantum Theory from 1966, that in the mid-1920’s, Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck discovered not only that electrons were orthorotating, but also that they were spinning at 1.37 times the speed of light. Gamow makes it clear that this discovery did not violate anything in quantum physics, but, of course, it violated Einstein’s theory. This finding went into oblivion and no physicist talks about it anymore. (Tesla vs. Einstein: the Ether & the Birth of the New Physics, 2012, (newdawnmagazine.com).

_________________The light of reason cannot penetrate the darkness of dogmatic skepticism (paraphrase of John 1:5).

I am sorry, I spent my career working in scientific fields (geology)and was completely sold on ALL advances in science (except somethat later turned out to be false). Since my retirement I found a TOTAL secrecy permeating many fields, so now I am a skeptic.I do not trust anything in science and am not impressed by anyauthoritarian statements. We think we know everything, but actually know nothing.

You mean authoritative statements. Authoritarian statements are made by orthodoxers. And if we didn't know anything we wouldn't have brains. Absolute skepticism is emotional dogma, is not based on evidence, is part and parcel of irrationalism, which is dominant in science, and is necessarily contradictory and self-refuting. If you don't know anything then you don't know that don't know anything. And how do you know the advances in geology you speak of are false if you don't know anything? Scientists are certain nothing is certain, and, of course, believe orthodoxy is always right and defend it with Inquisitional tactics and religious fervour. I don't see how anyone can be an absolute skeptic even in theory, and they certainly can't be in practice. The opposite extreme is by the guy who wrote The End of Science. The moderate and realistic view is that there are some things we know and some we don't. There is also the matter of a fundamental ontological principle, so if there is ignorance there must also be knowledge and vice versa, just as there is up and down, right and left, hot and cold, etc., etc.

_________________The light of reason cannot penetrate the darkness of dogmatic skepticism (paraphrase of John 1:5).

I can cite specific facts (images released by NASA) that cannot inmy opinion be explained. In at least one instance, one image as well as a discussion of the contents of that image by NASA personnel has been deleted within a few days of their original release. To me that means someone does not want a discussion of scientific evidence to be pursued. In another example a publication released an image that defies easy explanation. All efforts by me to comment on that image were ignored, and the publication did not release the succeeding issue. Later, the publication was reintroduced with a less frequent rate. (I have kept a copy of the issue with the controversial image.) Again it was clear that someone did not want to discuss the contents of the image. This kind of behavior is contrary to what I have been taught many years ago about pursuit of scientific evidence.I have also made comments and specified hypotheses about information released by NASA to several websites. Although I cannot prove that my input had anything to do, these websiteswent out of business shortly after my comments were made.